L3 Lead Examiner Report

2019

Additional Sample Material

2019

Level 3 National in
Information Technology

1
Edexcel and BTEC Qualifications

Edexcel and BTEC qualifications come from Pearson, the world’s leading learning
company. We provide a wide range of qualifications including academic, vocational,
occupational and specific programmes for employers. For further information visit
our qualifications websites at www.edexcel.com or www.btec.co.uk for our BTEC
qualifications.

Alternatively, you can get in touch with us using the details on our contact us page
at www.edexcel.com/contactus.

If you have any subject specific questions about this specification that require the
help of a subject specialist, you can speak directly to the subject team at Pearson.
Their contact details can be found on this link: www.edexcel.com/teachingservices.

You can also use our online Ask the Expert service at www.edexcel.com/ask. You
will need an Edexcel username and password to access this service.

Pearson: helping people progress, everywhere

Our aim is to help everyone progress in their lives through education. We believe
in every kind of learning, for all kinds of people, wherever they are in the world.
We’ve been involved in education for over 150 years, and by working across 70
countries, in 100 languages, we have built an international reputation for our
commitment to high standards and raising achievement through innovation in
education. Find out more about how we can help you and your learners at:
www.pearson.com/uk

October 2019
Publications Code 31761H _AddSAM_ER
All the material in this publication is copyright
© Pearson Education Ltd 2019

2
Grade Boundaries

What is a grade boundary?

A grade boundary is where we set the level of achievement required to obtain a
certain grade for the externally assessed unit. We set grade boundaries for each
grade, at Distinction, Merit and Pass. The grade awarded for each unit contributes
proportionately to the overall qualification grade and each unit should always be
viewed in the context of its impact on the whole qualification.

Setting grade boundaries

When we set grade boundaries, we look at the performance of every learner who
took the external assessment. When we can see the full picture of performance,
our experts are then able to decide where best to place the grade boundaries –
this means that they decide what the lowest possible mark is for a particular grade.

When our experts set the grade boundaries, they make sure that learners receive
grades which reflect their ability. Awarding grade boundaries is conducted to
ensure learners achieve the grade they deserve to achieve, irrespective of
variation in the external assessment.

Variations in external assessments

Each external assessment we set asks different questions and may assess
different parts of the unit content outlined in the specification. It would be unfair
to learners if we set the same grade boundaries for each assessment, because
then it would not take accessibility into account.

Grade boundaries for this, and all other papers, are on the website via this link:
qualifications.perason.com/gradeboundaries

Unit 2 Creating Systems to Manage Information

Grade Unclassified P M D

Boundary Mark - - - -

3
 Introduction
Please note there is a paper-based solution, database solutions, marking
guidance and two marked scripts available for use with this examiner’s report.

The resources are available here and will be referred to throughout this
report.

This unit is a mandatory synoptic unit, which requires candidates to complete

set activities to design, create, test and evaluate a relational database system
that manages information. The scenario in this examination was based
around a company offering Christmas events.

In terms of administration it was pleasing to see that most candidates

submitted only the evidence requested and ensured they followed the naming
conventions specified in the paper. Most centres printed the required
documents and sent them with the USB. Increasingly, examiners are unable
to access candidate work due to password protection. If centres are password
protecting USBs then they must ensure Pearson is informed of the password
so that it can be passed to the examiner.

Centres must use the examination templates provided with each examination
paper.

Candidates are not required to create any new attributes, they should use
all, and only, the attributes present in the data extract in Part A and the
attributes given in the tables in Part B. Please note, in terms of Part A, using
all and only the attributes given does not mean that candidates cannot
rename attributes. This is perfectly acceptable.

4
 Part A
Activity 1 – Database relationship
screenprint
This activity is designed to test the candidates’ knowledge and skills in terms
of database modelling via creating a database skeleton structure that reflects
third normal form within the constraints of the data set i.e. using all, and
only, the attributes given in the data file.

In terms of the new assessment format, this activity is exactly the same as
previous examinations. The only difference is that a data extract is used as
the basis of the investigation and that the number of fields are reduced in
order to minimise the input required in activity 2.

Teachers are advised to download Script A, Script B, the example solution

document, the example solution database and the marking guidance
document. In terms of this activity these pages are of relevance:

Part A
Script A 3
Script B 3
Example Solution 3
Marking Guidance 3

The evidence expected here is database relationship screenprint taken

from their actual database not a word processed ERD.

No annotations are required, and candidates should be discouraged from

including them.

The screenprint should include:

• each table in their solution

• fields in each table
• assigned primary keys
• foreign keys (where appropriate)
• relationships between tables
• the enforcement of referential integrity

Compared to previous examinations, it was surprising to see how many

candidates did not include evidence for this activity as, in terms of the
evidence they have to produce, it is exactly the same as in previous
examinations.

It was also clear that, at times, the candidates remembered their solution
from the summer examination and created exactly the same 4 table solution
even though it did not fit the data extract.

5
Where marks were not achieved it tended to be because:

• a fourth table was introduced with the extra attribute SeatTypeID; no

new attributes should be introduced
• attributes were in the wrong table/multiple tables
• keys were not present
• fields were truncated in tables. Each attribute that cannot be seen is
taken as an instance of data redundancy.
• referential integrity was not enforced
• links between the table were not on the correct fields

6
Activity 2 – Table structures and
validation
Candidates must use the template provided for this activity. Examiners mark
the evidence against the candidates’ own entity relationship screenprint
(activity 1) to ensure candidates are not double penalised for any errors
occurring in activity 1. Where candidates have not included an activity 1, their
structure is marked against our solution. It is designed to test their ability to
build the database tables following standard naming conventions including the
good use of field names, relevant data types, assignment of primary and
foreign keys and a range of suitable validation.

In terms of the new assessment format, the candidates are still tested on
exactly the same skills. The only difference is that the number of screenprints
has been reduced with the candidates only needing to produce one screenprint
per validation type given in the activity. It should be stressed that this does
mean that the fields shown are very significant as the skill is in not only
applying a particular type of validation but also ensuring it is relevant.
Relevant means it meets the validation requirements given at the beginning
of the activity.

It should be noted that candidates should ensure they validate all of the
requirements given even if they do not need to screenprint them all. They will
be testing the structure in activity 4.

Teachers are advised to download Script A, Script B and the example solution.
In terms of this activity these pages are of relevance:

Part A
Script A 4
Script B 3
Example Solution 4
Marking Guidance 4

Traits 1, 2 and 3

The evidence expected is one screen print per table.

This covers all of the first three traits.

Trait 1 Most candidates used standard naming conventions. The format

used for table names was consistent, the format used for keys was
consistent and the format used for the rest of the fields was
consistent. However, some are not ensuring tables include the
standard notation of tbl preventing access to bands 3 and 4 and
some did not appear to give any consideration as to the consistent
use of lowercase, uppercase, spaces, underscores etc. with many

7
 different formats being used.
Trait 2 Very few candidates did not manage to ensure the structure
matched the structure in their activity 1. It is worthwhile advising
candidates that if they do make changes to the structure in this
activity then they should update their screenprint in activity 1.
However, some candidates did not ensure the data types for the
foreign keys matched the primary keys e.g. AutoNumber for
primary, Short Text for foreign. AutoNumber should use a number
for the corresponding foreign key etc.

Trait 3 Many candidates did use the correct data types for all fields:

• House Number – Short Text

• NumTickets, Number
• Event Ticket Price, Currency
• EventDate, Date/Time
• primary keys, any suitable data type
• foreign keys match their primary (eg number -> AutoNumber)
• everything else text

Trait 4 Evidence for this trait was minimised, with candidates needing to
provide one screenprint per type of validation. However, as previously
mentioned, the validation must be relevant to the requirements the
candidates were given at the beginning of the activity. In this paper
the requirements were:

• a record will not save with the surname, house number and
postcode of the customer being present (customer table)
• a record will not save if the event selected is invalid (seat sale
table, EventID field)
• a record will not save in the seat type is invalid (seat sale table)
• a record will not save if the number of tickets in below the accepted
range (seat sale table)
• a record will not save if the number of tickets is above the accepted
range (seat sale table).

Presence Check

One screenprint, in design view, showing the

field name, presence check and suitable
validation text.

8
Length Check

One screenprint, in design view, on a text field

that show the field names and lengths applied.

Value Lookup or Range Check

In this paper the candidates had the choice of either providing evidence of a value
lookup or a range check (not both). The evidence expected was a screenprint, in
design view, for either a range check or a value lookup. If a validation rule had
been used for the range check then there must also have been evidence of suitable
validation text. If a lookup had been used as a range check then ‘limit to list’ must
have been set to ‘Yes’.

Table Lookup

A screenprint, in design view, for a foreign

key table lookup showing the field name and
lookup used. Limit to list must have been set
to Yes.

Some candidates could not be credited with proving evidence of suitable

validation because:

• primary/foreign keys – the table name and/or field name could not be
seen
• all other fields – field names could not be seen

9
Evidence in terms of validation was mixed.

Presence check Generally, well evidenced though some candidates are

still using ‘Required’ set to ‘Yes’ as opposed to a
validation rule. A validation rule what is expected
along with suitable validation text. Also, some are still
showing presence checks on primary keys which is not
suitable.

Length check This was very well evidenced. Any one of the text fields
mentioned at the beginning of activity were suitable to
use for evidence of this. Surname, House Number or
Postcode and Seat Type were suitable fields for this.

Value lookup There was generally good evidence for this.

The list of validation at the beginning of the activity

pointed to a value lookup for the seat type being
suitable and many had used this for the value lookup.

However, evidencing a range check for the NumTickets

using a value lookup was also suitable, providing limit
to list had been set to Yes. In terms of lookups, there
is no requirement to try and change the default error
message (‘The text you entered….’) that is given.

Table lookup A table lookup for one foreign key is expected with
‘Limit to List’ set to ‘Yes’. In most of the evidence seen
limiting the list to yes was missed. There were not
many instances of candidates looking up to the wrong
table.

Range check It was expected that candidates would apply a range

check to the NumTickets field as this is what was
suggested by the list of validation at the beginning of
activity 2. If a validation rule had been used to
evidence this then suitable validation text was
expected.

Format check The format check must be based on one of text fields
mentioned in the validation requirements at the
beginning of the activity.

Format checks should only be included where the data

warrants it. In the list of validation requirements given
at the beginning of the activity, the only field that
could possibly warrant a format check was Postcode.

Candidates should ensure the input mask or validation

used for this is based upon the data in the extract or
any specific requirements given. If the format check
does not fit the data, then it is not suitable.

10
Activity 3 Queries and Report
Whilst the skills required to complete this activity are no different to the skills
required to complete the queries and report parts of Activity 3 of previous
examinations this is now a standalone activity with its own marking grid.

The only other change is that the number of queries were reduced to two.

The evidence expected is still the same:

• a screenprint in design and a screenprint in datasheet view for the queries

• a screenprint of the report in design view, a separate pdf version of the
report and screenprints of any queries used in both design and datasheet
view.

Teachers are advised to download Script A, Script B and the example solution.
In terms of this activity these pages are of relevance:

Part A
Script A 7
Script B 7
Example Solution 5
Marking Guidance 6

Trait 1 This trait focusses on

• queries - the tables included in the top of the query grid and
the fields included in the query grid
• report - the fields included in any queries used and on the
report itself

Trait 2 This trait focuses on the criteria and/or calculations required.

Sorting is included as part of meeting criteria in this trait.

Trait 3 This trait focusses on the presentation of the query results and the
report. The queries and report should:

• show only the requested information

• present the information in a way that makes it easy to read
and understand
• include a relevant title (report)
• show consideration of how the data will be read i.e. ordering
of fields (e.g. not having the income generated before the
event description etc.)
• ensure that all of the data can be read (no truncation)
• ensure generated field names (queries) and label names
(report) are meaningful e.g. Event Description not
Eventdescription etc.
• ensure monetary amounts are shown as currency with 2
decimal places
• ensure the report has appropriate grouping (if it is required),
makes good use of the space on the page and alignment of
text, numbers etc.
11
Most candidates attempted this activity with varying degrees of success.

Query A
This query was well-evidenced on the whole. Most were able to ensure there was
an ascending sort on the Event Description and that the criteria used would select
dates between 20th and 21st of December 2019 only.

At times the evidence was weakened, affecting the mark awarded, because:

• the sort was on the wrong field

• the criteria for the event date was truncated
• either the sort or the criteria were missing.

Query B
It was surprising to see how many candidates did not attempt this query. Whilst
the calculations could be deemed as being higher level skills, there was something
for everybody in this query. Candidates should be encouraged to complete as
much of the queries as they can as there are three distinct traits. For example,
having the correct tables and fields in the grid is trait 1. Even if candidates cannot
accurately complete the calculations, they can ensure the fields are there. They
can also make sure generated fields have suitable names even if the calculations
do not work etc.

Where the query had been attempted many were able to generate the number of
tickets that had been sold, fewer were able to generate the income this would
produce.

It was nice to see how many of these candidates did pay attention to detail i.e.
naming their generated fields, ensuring the ordering of the columns would aid
readability and understanding etc.

Report
Where candidates had attempted the report there was varying degrees of success.
Many were able to show the number of tables/non table seats (choosing to do so
via grouping rather than specific calculations, which was fine in this instance).
Some successfully generated the number of customers, fewer managed to
generate all of the required calculations.

It was nice to see that some of the candidates had clearly thought about the
presentation of the report, particularly the label names and ensuring the page
width was used sensibly in terms of the placement of fields. However, just as
many candidates included only the default report created with the wizard. Whilst
the marks will obviously be affected it is worth including even only this as it can
still attract some marks.

12
Activity 4 – Testing
The new format of assessment includes two distinct testing activities with the
original 12 marks spilt so that each testing activity has 6 marks attached to
it. In part A the testing focusses on the tables.

Traits 1 and 2 focus on planning whilst traits 3 and 4 focus on the results of
this testing.

Candidates must use the template provided and should carry out only the tests
given in the task.

Teachers are advised to download Script A, Script B and the example solution.
In terms of this activity these pages are of relevance:

Script A
Script A 9
Script B 12
Example Solution 10
Marking Guidance 8

As in previous examinations, it is still apparent that some candidates do not

fully understand the testing process and how to complete these testing tables.

Where weaknesses were found they tended to be:

• type of test
o incorrect, missing etc. It should be noted that the template for
the testing activities do not change with each exam. What is
important are that the words as appropriate appear in the
examination paper i.e. normal, erroneous and extreme. If it is
not appropriate, then do not try to make sure each has been
given as a type of test in the template. For example, in this
paper there were no normal tests given hence this type of test
should not have appeared in the test type column
• test data
o none, not specific, irrelevant for the test being carried out. For
example, if the test was to ensure a customer forename has to
be present in order to save then the test data should give specific
values for the rest of the fields in the record and indicate that
the forename will be left blank
• expected results
o irrelevant to the test being carried out, not specific. For example,
if an error message should display then what error message will
that be? Taking on board comments made about setting Required
to ‘Yes’ not being the most appropriate way of applying a
presence check, this would be an ideal place for candidates to
realise that if they specified what error message would be
expected. The inbuilt messages are not very user friendly. If they
do not realise that whilst building the system, they should pick
up on it while testing. Also, at times candidates also talked about
what they had done and what happened.
13
• actual results
o not being able to see the test data for all of the fields
o not realising the actual results do not match the test being
carried out
o screenprints too small to read
• errors
o not recognising that test results are incorrect, not commenting
on errors, correcting the error(s).

14
Activity 5 – Evaluation
In terms of the new format of the examination there are also two separate
evaluation activities as opposed to one. The original 12 marks have been split
in two with 6 marks for the evaluation in part A and 6 for the evaluation in
part B.

The evaluation in part A is designed to test the candidates’ ability to evaluate

their database structure.

Teachers are advised to download Script A, Script B and the example solution.
In terms of this activity these pages are of relevance:

Part A
Script A 14
Script B 16
Example Solution 13
Marking Guidance 9

The candidates were asked to consider:

1 how well your database structure had minimised data duplication

2 how well your database structure meets these requirements:
o there are two types of seat: seats without tables and seats with
tables
o there must be at least one ticket purchased with each sale
o a sale cannot exceed eight tickets.

1 Data The first aspect is where the candidates should be

Duplication showcasing their knowledge of normalisation and what it
has meant in terms of their own database structure. We
want to know why they have the particular structure they
have.

Very few candidates were able to provide anything

meaningful here even when they did use the suitable
technical language. For example

• I have made sure there is no data duplication because

I have used primary keys.
• I have made sure there is no data duplication because
I have not put any data in
• I have put my data in third normal form
• My tables are the right ones

An extract from a good evaluation in terms of data

duplication included this text:

I did think that the seat type should not really be included
in the seat sale table as it does not rely wholly on the
15
 SeatSaleID. There could have been another table with an ID
and the seat type. However, I was told not to introduce any
further fields, and this seemed the best table for it to be in.
I did consider the event table but realised it would cause
duplication of the event details, so I left it with the seat sale
and created a combo box with the two values in it.
2 Validation The second aspect is where the candidates should be
showcasing their knowledge and skills in terms of validation.
This aspect was quite well evidenced on the whole with
many good accounts of not only what was done but also
why. An extract included:

I was able to easily meet the requirement for the number of

tickets. I added a validation rule to make sure the input
could only be in range and I added validation text to make
sure the user knew what was wrong. Without the error
message the validation is not as effective as it should be. I
thought about using a combo box with limit to list as a value
lookup, but I preferred being able to give a custom error
message rather than the standard one and that is why I
chose to use a validation rule to make sure the number of
tickets was between 1 and 8 rather than a value lookup.

16
 Part B
Activity 6 – Interface and Functionality
This activity no longer includes reference or marks for the queries and the
report as previously mentioned. It is now designed to test the candidates’
ability to build the forms to meet the specified requirements. It should be
noted that candidates should only include annotations where they think it is
absolutely necessary in order to explain the method used. Candidates can
certainly achieve full marks in this activity without any annotations at all.

It should be noted that where it says “ensure you have included enough detail
to fully show how …. works” it is not a prompt for the candidate to write about
what they have done or to show the forms etc. working (that is carried out in
the testing activity). It is a prompt to make sure they check they have included
enough detail in the evidence they have already provided above that
statement eg form view, design view, method of generating keys, sources of
combo boxes, queries used, code/macros used etc. The question to ask
themselves is “would the examiner know exactly what my forms look like,
what criteria/calculations have been used and exactly how they work?”

Candidates must use the template provided in the examination.

Teachers are advised to download Script A, Script B and the example solution.
In terms of this activity these pages are of relevance:

Part B
Script A 16
Script B 17
Example Solution 3
Marking Guidance 3

It is worthwhile considering the focus of the traits in terms of assessment and

where these differ from previous examinations.

It is also worthwhile noting the difference between the two input forms.
Candidates should think carefully about the purpose of each. The supplier
form was an input form to add a new record and save it. The delivery form
was an input form to find a product, input the number of that product delivered
and see associated fields and results of calculations. Due to time constraints
in the examination the actual updating of the NumberInStock field in the table
was not part of the process.

The purpose of the form should help determine whether the form is bound to
a table or not. Please see the example solution documentation for more
information about this.

17
Trait 1 This trait has nothing to do with automation. It focusses on the
forms, how they look, what user aids have been provided, good
labels, disabled fields, asterisks, the width of the fields, layout etc.

Trait 2 This focuses on criteria/calculations. Some examinations may

only have criteria, some only calculations and some both. In this
paper there were calculations that should have been used.

Trait 3 This focuses on automation and validation. The first form will
focus on validation and the automation of the save process. The
second form will not include any validation or the automation of a
save process. It will be to test skills such as being able to filter
using appropriate criteria and automate the generation of data
using calculations etc.

Trait 4 This considers all the other traits in order to place the candidate
in the correct band with the correct mark.

Candidates were expected to produce two forms. One for a new supplier and
the other to add product deliveries.

Supplier form expectations and evidence seen:

Trait 1 Expectations

• Sensible title
• Instructions on how to use the form
• SupplierID disabled
• Labels useful (spaces between words etc)
• Field widths appropriate, not just default and not all the
same size – relevant to the data that will be displayed in
them
• Attempt at house style – alignment of fields, alignment of
data in fields, different size font for title compared to data
etc.

Evidence seen

Most candidates produced this form. Most ensured there was a

sensible title. However, not very many tried to customise the form
past that. This was disappointing considering this is a trait based
purely on how the form looks and how easy it would be to use. It
was clear to see that many candidates had used the option to create
a form based on a table (without the use of the wizard) resulting in
an unnecessary sub form and the automatic grouping of fields. If
candidates do use this method, they should ensure sub forms are
removed and that they know how to remove the layout so that fields
can be size independently of each other. Relying purely on defaults
from either creating the form with or without a wizard will not
attract many marks.

Trait 2 No criteria or calculations for this form

Expectations

18
Trait 3 • Forms opens at a new record
• Saving only takes place if
o Surname, House Number and Postcode are present
o Delivery days is between 1 and 5
o the valid record would be saved in the supplier table
correctly
o a save message would display
o the form would be cleared ready for next new supplier
• Suitable error messages would be displayed if the save should
not take place
• Note validation rules added to the field properties on the form
were not accepted for presence checks. They needed to be
done within the macro or code.

Evidence seen

Fewer candidates attempted to evidence this trait. Whilst it is

understandable that some will not be able to manage some of the
higher-level skills, there is something for everybody. Note relying
on the wizard that allows the addition of a save button with auto-
generated actions will not attract many marks. It will certainly allow
access to band 1 but does not go beyond that. Relying on table
level validation to kick in is not an option in this activity as the tables
should not have any validation and, if validation had been added to
them, it will be ignored.

Candidates need to able to use validation within macros/code where

appropriate. See earlier comments about presence checks being
added to field properties on the form not being suitable. Candidates
should be encouraged to think about the general process for any
form that needs to save a record

IF – validation not met THEN

Display error message
ELSE IF – next validation not met THEN
Display error message
ELSE IF …. THEN
Display error message

ELSE
Save record
Move to a new record
Display suitable save message
END IF

The above applies to actions in a macro or code.

Candidates must provide screenshot evidence of the automation

and ensure all parts of it can be seen. For example, if a candidate
had chosen to use the field properties on the form to implement the
range check but then code/macro for the rest of the save process
then a screenprint showing the range check and screenprint(s) of

19
 the macro/code would be expected. Examiners must be able to see
the entire process.

Fewer candidates were using an unbound form for this part of the
task. The is beneficial for them as it removes the need to create and
evidence an append query and the problems associated with it i.e.
truncated evidence, forgetting to include screenprints of the query,
forgetting to use it in the macro/code.

Product delivery form expectations:

Trait 1 Expectations

• Sensible title
• Instructions on how to use the form
• Can select the ProductID/Product
• Can input the number delivered
• These existing fields displayed
o Cost price
o Selling price
o Number in stock
• These field ready for generation of data (do not look at
the calculations themselves in this trait)
o New number in stock
o Overall product cost
o Overall sales value
• All fields disabled other than the product combo box and
the number delivered
• Labels useful (spaces between words etc)
• Field widths appropriate, not just default and not all the
same size – relevant to the data that will be displayed in
them
• Attempt at house style – alignment of fields, alignment of
data in fields, different size font for title compared to data
etc.
• Monetary amounts formatted to currency with 2 decimal
places

Evidence seen

A number of candidates did not attempt this form at all which is

disappointing. Even if candidates cannot complete the higher-
level skills, they should still be capable of producing the form and
making sure the fields required are there, even if candidates add
the fields that would be used for the calculations and do not
implement them. To reiterate this trait is all about how the forms
looks and potential ease of use.

20
 Of those who did attempt it few went beyond the default form
with the same problems as described for the first form. Very few
seemed to recognise only two fields required interaction from the
user and the rest should have been disabled.

Generally, the form had a suitable title and that was about it in
terms of presentation and ease of use.

Trait 2 Expectations

• New number in stock (existing number in stock + number

delivered) generated
• Overall product cost (new number in stock * cost price)
generated
• Overall selling price (new number in stock * selling price)
generated

Evidence seen

It was pleasing to see that some of the candidates managed to

generate all of results. However, many did not attempt any at all
and, of those who did attempt them, most managed to produce
the new number in stock.

Trait 3 Expectations

• After product has been selected from combo box the

relevant data for Cost price, Selling price and number in
stock is displayed and the calculated fields display the
correct results. Note, if no combo box had been used then
this affected automation.

Evidence seen

Very few automated this i.e. there was no combo box or the
source of the combo box and how the results of the calculations
were refreshed after selection were shown. Of those who had
attempted the calculations most had no combo box at all.

There were different methods that could have been used e.g.

• using the product table as the source of the form. Using the
combo box wizard to draw a combo box and using the
option to find a record on the form based on the ProductID
chosen. This would have refreshed the contents of the form
after selection. Candidates would need to screenprint the
embedded macro associated with this.
• using an unbound form. Adding a combo box with the
relevant product information from the product table in it.
Setting the source of the cost price, selling price and
number in stock to the values in the relevant combo box
column. Adding a re-query to the After Update event of the
combo box to refresh the form.

21
Activity 7 – Testing
As with the activity 4 testing in part A, traits 1 and 2 focus on planning whilst
traits 3 and 4 focus on the results of this testing.

Testing in this activity focuses purely on the two forms.

Candidates must use the template provided in each examination and should
only carry out the tests specified in the task.

Teachers are advised to download Script A, Script B and the example solution.
In terms of this activity these pages are of relevance:

Part B
Script A 19
Script B 23
Example Solution 7
Marking Guidance 7

The evidence seen tended to match the evidence found for activity 4. Some
candidates included excellent evidence. However, more did not.

Where weaknesses were found they tended to be:

• test data
o none, not specific, irrelevant for the test being carried out. For
example, if the test was to ensure a customer forename has to
be present in order to save then the test data should give specific
values for the rest of the fields in the record and indicate that
the forename will be left blank
• expected results
o irrelevant to the test being carried out, not specific. For example,
if an error message should display then what error message
should that be.
• actual results
o Not being able to see the form itself or the data on it
o Not showing everything that happens. For example, proving the
save works should include:
➢ screenshot of the form with the data clearly visible and the
save message on screen
➢ screenshot of the form cleared (if applicable)
➢ screenshot of the new record in the table(s).
➢ screenshots of the form with the data present and the
results of calculations etc.
• errors
o Not recognising the test results are incorrect, not commenting
on errors, correcting the error(s).

22
Activity 8 – Evaluation
This activity is designed to test the candidates’ ability to evaluate their
interface. Thinking about the user and what the forms mean to them in terms
of usability is very important in this activity.

Teachers are advised to download Script A, Script B and the example solution.
In terms of this activity these pages are of relevance:

Part B
Script A 23
Script B 28
Example Solution 11
Marking Guidance 8

Evidence seen was on a par with the evidence seen for activity 5. Many
candidates did not realise the importance of the user, evaluating the interface
purely through their own performance. Those who could relate the solution to
the user tended to achieve better marks.

Two extracts are shown from a good evaluation:

“I used code to make sure the delivery days were in range. I think I did a
little bit better than what was needed as I defaulted the delivery days to 1
when the form opened. This would save the user having to input it if the days
were 1 but did not mean they could not replace with a different number from
the range. I checked to make sure the days were in the range of 1 to 5.”

I am also happy with the delivery form. I used a combo box to allow the user
to select the product. The combo box was sorted into ascending order to make
it a little easier to find the product for the user. Though the combo box only
showed the product description the CostPrice, SellingPrice and numberInStock
fields were also in it – I hid them. I didn’t think the user needed to see them
in the combo box and thought it might have distracted them. I also thought it
would make the form easier for the user to use by defaulting the number
delivered to 1 so I did that. This did not mean they could not change it but
meant less input if the number delivered was 1. I did think about whether it
should be more and have something to do with the re-order level, but nothing
was really said about how many should be ordered just when the ordering
should happen.

23
For more information on Edexcel qualifications, please visit
www.edexcel.com/quals

Pearson Education Limited. Registered company number 872828

with its registered office at Edinburgh Gate, Harlow, Essex CM20 2JE

24